Marriage is not merely a personal contract. It has always been a public union, and law requires witnesses to the exchange of consent between the parties just about everywhere. It needs to be public for the protection of the spouses, but especially for the protection of their children.

I agree that there is no reason for the state to register friendships that are not capable of producing children and can be dissolved at any time for any reason. If two or more people want to share property, it is fairly easy to write contracts detailing the property rights of each party. The flaw in your reasoning is to call a same sex union a marriage. It has entirely different ends from marriage.

Democracy isn’t mob rule of people’s private lives, by necessity it governs the actions to be taken on issues that directly effect the entire population. What you describe is tyranny of the majority, and has no place in classically liberal states.

Problem is, a majority of the population will have to agree there is a tyrannical Gvt in place before efforts can begin in order to shut it down…this is never going to happen, at least in the US, far too many people today take the Govt side, and/or do not believe tyranny is in place…that shows how sneaky and manipulative our modern Govt has become, they essentially found a way around( a loophole if you will), a big part of the nations Constitution.

I really believe there are so naive people out there, they would have to hear straight from the tyrannical power …to literally announce itself to be tyrannical before they could even recognize it or agree revolution needs to happen…well, DUH, that never going to happen. LOL Of course such a Govt would want to hide what it really is, and if they can get a large number of the population to fall for their lies, even better.

The examples you’ve identified here are between one consenting adult and children, animals, or dead people (all of whom can’t cognitively consent to marriage).

Children are not really at the age of reason, so the lack of consent I think is a good argument, dead people, don’t exist here anymore, so it hardly effects them, unless it’s emotional manipulation of someone’s dead loved one. Don’t know how that would work, but there would be good grounds for rejecting it.

A better one would be property, what if one wanted to marry their house? it’s their own property, so they don’t need consent, it doesn’t harm you or anyone else, should we put this erroneous view of marriage into law?

Not only that, but the other slippery slope ones are polygamy and incest, especially since sex and procreation are now nobodies business, why would anyone be against polygamy or incest once taking sex and procreation out of the equation?

Same sex marriage is a total lie and it’s main aim is breaking down and destroying the family, whether those who support it intend that result or not. If two mums are equal, what’s so special about a father? and if two fathers are equal, what’s so special about a mother? and what’s so special about a child’s biological parents?

If a homosexual couple wish to live together and share their lives together like a marriage between a man and a woman, than they should be free to do so, they should not be free to change the definition of marriage and argue equality, because it’s not a marriage and it’s not equal.

As Trader mentioned, if procreation and sex are taken out of the equation (which is done to legislate same sex marriage) then there really is no reason for the government to be involved at all with this new erroneous view of marriage.

Children are not really at the age of reason, so the lack of consent I think is a good argument, dead people, don’t exist here anymore, so it hardly effects them, unless it’s emotional manipulation of someone’s dead loved one. Don’t know how that would work, but there would be good grounds for rejecting it.

A better one would be property, what if one wanted to marry their house? it’s their own property, so they don’t need consent, it doesn’t harm you or anyone else, should we put this erroneous view of marriage into law?

Not only that, but the other slippery slope ones are polygamy and incest, especially since sex and procreation are now nobodies business, why would anyone be against polygamy or incest once taking sex and procreation out of the equation?

Public sentiment could be slowly and methodically changed on these things too, in order to put them in an ‘acceptable’ light.

Look back just 40-50 years, they have done a bang up job at swaying the public sentiment/ opinion about gay marriage and homosexuality in general…so they could do the same thing with any of the things you mentioned imo.

Ive believed for awhile now, the next likely ‘group’ trying to fight for rights and acceptance will be pedophiles.

It has always failed in referendums Almost always imposed prejudicial fiat

It has not always failed because it did win on the ballot in Ireland and in three US states I think… but by and large when it has been to put to a public vote, I think, majorities of voters have voted to protect marriage between one man and one woman.

Public sentiment could be slowly and methodically changed on these things too, in order to put them in an ‘acceptable’ light.

Look back just 40-50 years, they have done a bang up job at swaying the public sentiment/ opinion about gay marriage and homosexuality in general…so they could do the same thing with any of the things you mentioned imo.

Ive believed for awhile now, the next likely ‘group’ trying to fight for rights and acceptance will be pedophiles.

I would be very surprised if such became the case, since pedophilia is criminal because it involves manipulating or abusing a child. Consent cannot be fully given by both parties since the child is not capable of it.

So I don’t think that is likely, but if it was ever argued for, I think people would get a sharp wake up call, not only that, but the biggest difference would be when it comes to same sex marriage, I just think people should stop messing with ‘marriage’ nor argue ‘equality’ but when it comes to pedophilia, they should be arrested and imprisoned for sexually abusing a child.

Not only that, but the whole ‘born this way’ rhetoric that Is used to justify homosexual acts, can also be used in the exact same way when it comes to pedophilia and other criminal things.

How is this a tyranny? Are you being forced into a homosexual marriage? The fact that other people are doing something that you personally disagree with does not make you oppressed. You still have a right to espouse your views however distasteful they are.

How is this tyranny, are you being forced to marry a house? or multiple husbands/wives?, or your brother(s) or sister(s)? The fact that other people are doing something you personally disagree with does not make you oppressed. You still have a right to espouse your views however distasteful they are.

… See, others can do it too.

If two mums are equal, what’s so special about a father? If two fathers are equal, what’s so special about a mother? What’s so special about a child’s biological parents? I guess my views are just distasteful to anyone who wants to intentionally deprive a child of their mother or father and argue ‘equality’ with such alternatives.

By what right do people think they put matters like this to a referendum? The state should never interfere with marriage contracts - if you disagree with gay-marriage, then preach against it, don’t run to the banhammer. .

Same-sex marriage is already banned in Bermuda. The non-binding referendum was scheduled because the government had been considering removing the ban, and it wanted to assess public opinion on the topic.

Proponents of same-sex marriage are now expected to use the judicial system tin an attempt to overturn the ban.

I think you need to go beyond what you think about specifics and put out principles.

I’ll be interested in the principles you are going to put forth here.

God bless.

Cathoholic

Handing off the awarding of marriage certificates does not equal toleration, I simply feel this is the best method to preserve religious freedom, in that it removes the definition of marriage from public debate. What people must understand about this debate is that Gay-couples, modern liberals, and quite a large section of society in general, understand the word “marriage” simply as a public expression of love. They are NOT referring to sacramental marriage, if only because they don’t understand what that means.

Most people in the public are not aware of the special qualifications of sacramental marriage, and sacramental marriage is not the same as legal marriage. Language is arbitrary and fluid - that marriage has become a loan-word for “loving relationship” in the public eye should be of no concern to the teachings of the Church.

Anyway, onto your examples.

“Granny marrying her grandkids” - (Assuming the grandkids are of legal age) This is objectively wrong because the products of incest are often deformed, sickly, or stillborn. This is unlikely to garner popular support.

“Kids and old folks” - Legal consent is well enshrined in public consensus. Children are not observed fully understand a marriage, therefore, cohabitation in this manner would still be considered a crime.

“Animals” - Same issue as before, legal consent is absent, since an animal is not sapient. Additionally, most still intrinsically understand that marriage should offer support and companionship in a deep way, animals are not capable of this.

I will also qualify, gay-marriage is hardly comparable to any of these, since the pairs are consenting adults.

I think you also demean the Church’s capacity to evangelise and to articulate the truth of its own beliefs when you suggest we should run to coercive force to do our work for us. Jesus showed grace to sinners, so should we.

(I’m going to preface my remarks with, I am NOT supporting these re-definitions of marriage.)

QuidVertisEst. You said . . .

This is objectively wrong because the products of incest are often deformed, sickly, or stillborn. This is unlikely to garner popular support.

That’s your opinion. So what?

If we can medically fix this (“sickly” etc.), should incest THEN be OK in your world?

Who is the state, that they can “moralize” marriage to others?

What about you “majority” moralizers (“popular support” that YOU cited) getting off the backs of the oppressed minority?

“Kids and old folks” - Legal consent is well enshrined in public consensus. Children are not observed fully understand a marriage, therefore, cohabitation in this manner would still be considered a crime.

If its so “enshrined” WHY allow kids to get abortions, or sex change operations, or in some countires state assisted “suicide” of children?

And the heck with “public consensus” and “enshrinement”. Maybe its time for a change.

Where is your “defining principles”?

“Animals” - Same issue as before, legal consent is absent, since an animal is not sapient. Additionally, most still intrinsically understand that marriage should offer support and companionship in a deep way, animals are not capable of this.

Who cares about YOUR OPINION about aiming for “support and companionship in a deep way”?

Why do YOU think the state ought to be involved over a little petty jealousy? What if the gals and the kids who are the guy’s “spouses” get along great? Then what?

Why should some guy who wants a harem have his “rights” restricted because of somebody else’s haremphobia?

I will also qualify, gay-marriage is hardly comparable to any of these, since the pairs are consenting adults.

How many? Why “pairs”?

What about the passing on of society and the compatibility with nature for “life giving love” and all of that? Is that “irrelevant”?

Does that not affect society as a whole?

I think you also demean the Church’s capacity to evangelise and to articulate the truth of its own beliefs when you suggest we should run to coercive force to do our work for us. Jesus showed grace to sinners, so should we.

I’m glad you said this because I was thinking the same thing about what YOU have said.

If I want to be a high school health teacher, I now have to face “coercive force” to teach something I think is wrong.

If I’m a photographer, in your paradigm, I have to put up with “coercive force” as to picking my customers and clients.

If I want to rent out my barn for “wedding” receptions, but don’t want to be subject to things that I think are bad for society like a gal getting married to her pooch, I am being subject to “coercive force”.

If I send my child to the public school, will he or she be exposed to this from the state too?

“Opting out” in some other areas like school “health” personnel putting some of America’s daughters on the pill or whisking them away (in some cases across state lines to kill their babies) without parental consent hasn’t worked the way it should.

Why not a little compassion for the adult teacher that wants to “marry” her little boy student? After all, Jesus showed grace to sinners. Shouldn’t WE?

Your following quote emphasis mine.

I simply feel this is the best method to preserve . . .

Why should harem supporters be concerned about YOUR “feelings”?

What if pooch-marriage suuporters think YOU are just tossing out “**apocalyptic ramblings of “attacks on marriage”” **and “spewing hate”?

WHO is right? Them or you?

Gracepoole. You mentioned . . .

The examples you’ve identified here are between one consenting adult and children, animals, or dead people (all of whom can’t cognitively consent to marriage).

So what?

What “cognitive” standard do YOU insist on? Should we make it force of law?

Why all the “judgmentalism” for people in other countries who want to “marry” a nine year old girl?

Who needs YOUR definition of “consent”?

So I am still looking for a PRINCIPLE of what YOU . . . “one man one woman only marriage opposers” think “marrage” is . . . and WHY should your opinion trump somebody else’s opinion?

How is this tyranny, are you being forced to marry a house? or multiple husbands/wives?, or your brother(s) or sister(s)? The fact that other people are doing something you personally disagree with does not make you oppressed. You still have a right to espouse your views however distasteful they are.

… See, others can do it too.

So, you’re saying you agree with me?

If two mums are equal, what’s so special about a father? If two fathers are equal, what’s so special about a mother? What’s so special about a child’s biological parents? I guess my views are just distasteful to anyone who wants to intentionally deprive a child of their mother or father and argue ‘equality’ with such alternatives.

God Bless You

Thank you for reading
Josh

This has nothing to do with people consenting to marriage. But to address your comment: children do not have a right to be raised by their biological parents. I don’t believe that you really hold that view anyways. Is it better to be raised by a loving adopted or foster parent than by an unfit biological one? Would it be better to be raised by an adopted parent who wants a child than one who doesn’t? Why are you not ranting about the evils of adoption agencies who have more of an impact removing biological parents from their children than all gay families combined?

Marriage is not merely a personal contract. It has always been a public union, and law requires witnesses to the exchange of consent between the parties just about everywhere. It needs to be public for the protection of the spouses, but especially for the protection of their children.

I agree that there is no reason for the state to register friendships that are not capable of producing children and can be dissolved at any time for any reason. If two or more people want to share property, it is fairly easy to write contracts detailing the property rights of each party. The flaw in your reasoning is to call a same sex union a marriage. It has entirely different ends from marriage.

How does it have different ends than a straight married couple who choose to remain childless?

“Granny marrying her grandkids” - (Assuming the grandkids are of legal age) This is objectively wrong because the products of incest are often deformed, sickly, or stillborn. This is unlikely to garner popular support.

First, most grandmothers are past their childbearing years. Second, the fact that the US can call the inherently sterile sexualized friendship between two men “marriage” shows that the legal definition of marriage no longer has anything to do with children.

QuidVeritasEst:

“Kids and old folks” - Legal consent is well enshrined in public consensus. Children are not observed fully understand a marriage, therefore, cohabitation in this manner would still be considered a crime.

We’re already seeing that children of any age are considered competent and knowledgeable enough to claim that they are “really” the opposite sex, and that claim has been given sufficient weight by the government that it is mandated that these children be allowed to use whatever restroom and facilities they wish.

QuidVeritasEst:

“Animals” - Same issue as before, legal consent is absent, since an animal is not sapient. Additionally, most still intrinsically understand that marriage should offer support and companionship in a deep way, animals are not capable of this.

There’s already a push on to grant animals full legal rights. Why would this not include marriage? To steal a bit of propaganda: “Why are you against love?”

QuidVeritasEst:

“The Dead” - Dead people cannot voice consent

Yet they can leave legally binding documents expressing their wishes. What would block a person from expressing post-mortem consent in their will?

Polygamy is something that has actually been practiced quite successfully in history (unlike same-sex “marriage”).

QuidVeritasEst:

I will also qualify, gay-marriage is hardly comparable to any of these, since the pairs are consenting adults.

As same-sex “marriage” itself shows, any legal limitations on who may marry are now entirely arbitrary. Once children - even in potentia - are removed from the equation, there is no legal rationale behind limitations based on age, number, species, or even life.

QuidVeritasEst:

I think you also demean the Church’s capacity to evangelise and to articulate the truth of its own beliefs when you suggest we should run to coercive force to do our work for us. Jesus showed grace to sinners, so should we.

“Granny marrying her grandkids” - (Assuming the grandkids are of legal age) This is objectively wrong because the products of incest are often deformed, sickly, or stillborn. This is unlikely to garner popular support.

.

There would be no problem, then, if a Grandmother married her adult granddaughter? I mean why should we stand in the way of “love”

How does it have different ends than a straight married couple who choose to remain childless?

That is a good question. A straight couple who choose to frustrate one of the ends of marriage is exactly like the same-sex couple. It is the reason why contraception is always morally wrong.

The two ends of marriage are the unity of the couple and procreation. Both are necessary for a marriage as it has been understood for thousands of years, taught in Scripture, and reaffirmed by Jesus himself and his Church since its beginning.

You can find many fine articles on this by simply doing a search for “two ends of marriage.”

That is a good question. A straight couple who choose to frustrate one of the ends of marriage is exactly like the same-sex couple. It is the reason why contraception is always morally wrong.

The two ends of marriage are the unity of the couple and procreation. Both are necessary for a marriage as it has been understood for thousands of years, taught in Scripture, and reaffirmed by Jesus himself and his Church since its beginning.

You can find many fine articles on this by simply doing a search for “two ends of marriage.”

So I guess next Bermuda should vote to ban heterosexual marriage in cases where the couple are not open to having babies.